Amy Goodman: Don’t Drink the Nuclear Kool-Aid

[marmar]

Don’t Drink the Nuclear Kool-Aid


Posted on Jul 16, 2008
By Amy Goodman

While the presidential candidates trade barbs and accuse each other of flip-flopping, they agree with President Bush on their enthusiastic support for nuclear power.

Sen. John McCain has called for 100 new nuclear power plants. Sen. Barack Obama, in a July 2007 Democratic candidate debate, answered a pro-nuclear power audience member, “I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix.” Among Obama’s top contributors are executives of Exelon Corp., a leading nuclear power operator in the nation. Just this week, Exelon released a new plan, called “Exelon 2020: A Low-Carbon Roadmap.” The nuclear power industry sees global warming as a golden opportunity to sell its insanely expensive and dangerous power plants.

But nuclear power is not a solution to climate change—rather, it causes problems. Amory Lovins is the co-founder and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado. He makes simple, powerful points against nuclear: “The nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It is a very carefully fabricated illusion ... there are no buyers. Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies.” He adds: “Basically, we can have as many nuclear plants as Congress can force the taxpayers to pay for. But you won’t get any in a market economy.”

Even if nuclear power were economically viable, Lovins continues, “the first issue to come up for me would be the spread of nuclear weapons, which it greatly facilitates. If you look at places like Iran and North Korea ... how do you think they’re doing it? Iran claims to be making electricity vital to its development. ... The technology, materials, equipment, skills are applicable to both. ... The president is absolutely right in identifying the spread of nuclear weapons as the gravest threat to our security, so it’s really puzzling to me that he’s trying to accelerate that spread every way he can think of. ... It’s just an awful idea unless you’re really interested in making bombs. He’s really triggered a new Mideast arms race by trying to push nuclear power within the region.”

Along with proliferation, there are terrorist threats to existing nuclear reactors, like Entergy’s controversial Indian Point nuclear plant just 24 miles north of New York City. Lovins calls these “about as fat a terrorist target as you can imagine. It is not necessary to fly a plane into a nuclear plant or storm a plant and take over a control room in order to cause that material to be largely released. You can often do it from outside the site boundary with things the terrorists would have readily available.” ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080716_dont_drink_the_nuclear_kool_aid/?ln

[hobbit709]

1. The only nuclear power I want to see is fusion.

[Donnachaidh]

If anyone wants to see the LONG TERM problems for humanity with nuclear accidents

They only need to find a copy of the HBO documentary "Chernobyl Heart". The children born since Chernobyl's accident have multiple problems with birth defects. And while many may say we are better at using nuclear power in this country - it only takes ONE accident to ruin lives for generations.

[harun]

2. I disagree with Amy on this one

We have had a real revolution in Quality Assurance the last 20-30 years. When compared to other options Nuclear is very safe. Options like coal for electricity or oil for cars are infinitely more dangerous to the environment and human life.

A policy of Wind/Solar/Nuclear/bio-fuels together is the way to go. The options need to be diverse or big money will simply corner the market of any one option (oil) and fleece the consumer. That is what needs to be avoided. The only group with the power to keep this diversified is the Federal Government.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Lovins has been wrong about energy issues for 30 years

Not just nuclear energy, but the entire panel.

He was certain that we would have an all-solar grid by 2000. Electric cars by 1990. Jetpack-and-monorail stuff.

Truthdig likes him because he toots the "Fear-The-Nuke" trumpet. When you look into any of those fears, you can see that they're little more than cartoons. The fears are only kept alive by the now-defunct Soviet nuclear industry.

Meanwhile, examine the damage that coal and petroleum cause. The radiological damage alone from fossil fuel is astounding.

We are NOT going to be able to deal with energy issues by consulting our "gut".

--p!

[madokie]

5. I'll take the mess we have today any day over what would be likely todays mess

if we were getting most of our power from nuclear energy all these years. This thats been done up to now with fossil fuels will be a lot easier to live with than if we also had a few more three mile islands, hansfords etc. that an increase in the numbers of nuclear plants would surely entail. With co2 we might get another chance but with radiation poisoning there would be no overs.

If Lovins is so wrong and you are so right, as you and that other guy says, then why is Lovins making the big bucks and you guys aren't? Why? If I was you guys I'd be raising hell about that, and not just by complaining and calling him names on a message board either.

[PVnRT]

10. France has been doing fine with nuclear for years

How do you explain that?

[madokie]

11. read some of the fine print coming from france today

and not just the official bull.

[SidDithers]

12. Ontario gets more than half of its electricity from Nuclear...

is there fine print coming from Ontario too?

Sid

[PVnRT]

16. ...and what "fine print" might that be?

[greenman3610]

13. problem is not with France's nukes

although they are beginning to move away from them.

Problem is with the nukes that France wants to sell to
Libya, Algeria, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,..............


if we are going to declare nuclear the answer, we
had better be very clear, and make a list of the countries
we will NOT bomb/invade/occupy if they build
nukes.
presumably, these will be white, Christian countries exclusively.

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Is this still about the big E/E feud?

Sorry, I'm not part of it, and don't intend to be. My world does not revolve around a 10-way grudge fight against a single user on a netroots forum.

I'd go into more detail on Lovins, but you'd dismiss that, too. I already explained in brief why I think poorly of the guy. Read some of his stuff, then watch one of Conan O'Brien's "In The Year 2000" skits. I first read Lovins in 1978, and he was a wishful thinker back then, too.

Radiation doesn't last forever. Most of it is gone in a few centuries. But a "runaway greenhouse reaction" could raise the temperature of the Earth to 200F in as little as a century and to 900F within a few millennia.

And do you really believe that wealth is a good measure of the value of a person?

--p!

[bananas]

17. He's been right a lot more than he's been wrong

In the past 30 years, 12 years of Reagan/Bush and 8 years of Bush/Cheney,
doing everything they can to push oil and nuclear down our throats.
And the Republicans are still pushing for more drilling and more nuclear.
But even the nuclear industry knows McCain is full of it,
according to a recent article in Business Week:

In a mid-June speech, part of a continuing blitz on energy issues, McCain laid out his vision for 100 new nuclear plants—45 of them to be built by 2030...

"I'm not quite sure the number McCain put out is obtainable," says Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy Institute.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x158528

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Nuclear down our throats

They didn't do such a good job, did they?

The Republicans have never been serious about nuclear energy. If they were, they might have actually approved a few reactors in the last 28 years, don't you think?

The Republicans love power. Not nuclear power, not wind power, not solar power -- just power. Meanwhile, John McCain talks big and does nothing. Not just about energy issues, but about everything.

And so, another attempt by anti-nuclearists at guilt-by-association falls by the wayside.

--p!

[madokie]

4. I won't drink of the koolaid, Amy

just the smell it gives off gives me the heebeejeebeeeeees skin just a' crawling right now from even giving it thought

[cobalt1999]

6. I disagree.

The lives lost in fossil fuel electricity production are far more than Chernobyl, the impact to the environment far more, the impact on global warming immense.

Nuclear Plants should be a part of the total solution.

[Atman]

7. Dick "Dick" Cheney is heavily invested in N plants, and wants them fast-tracked

with NO INSPECTIONS until AFTER the plants are completed. I am not making this up. Cheney thinks all the on-site inspections during construction delay getting the plants on-line, and wants the process streamlined so that plants only have to undergo one final inspection to certify them before going online. It's another one of his insanely stupid greed-fests, and anyone who thinks a government contractor won't look at an inspection-free building site as a free-money pool hasn't been paying attention to the way these guys operate. As with anything Cheney has his evil, blood-soaked paws in, it's all about HIM making gobs more money, fuck everyone else. The man is truly a soul-less evil mother fucker. One of the worst human beings roaming the planet.

.

[madokie]

8. Time will prove you to be correct about the dick

[paparush]

9. Bush keeps tying (lying) oil to electricity costs

As Lovins point out, only 2-4% of our power comes from burning oil

The VAST majority of our power comes from burning coal...which we have in abundance.

So, actually, the cost of oil has little bearing on the cost of electricity.

[SidDithers]

14. "It’s just an awful idea unless you’re really interested in making bombs."...

Canada has had nuclear power for 50 years, and has no interest in nuclear weapons.

Sid

[wvbygod]

18. I'll wait until Amy gets her degree in Nuclear Physics

Science is not for the weak of heart or mind.

[Occam Bandage]

20. I am entirely in favor of nuclear power in America. Nuclear proliferation and terror threat are

both utterly ridiculous red herrings.

[cliffordu]

21. SOLAR NOW. SOLAR NOW. SOLAR NOW.